From: Yamal Khaled Soueidan <jkhaledsoueidan@...>
Date: 2007-03-28T21:34:42+09:00
Subject: Re: general question (different between methods and functions)?

------=_Part_30126_1194282.1175085279578
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Thats what I meant, functions is used without the object, and are called
direct, whereas the methods is used with the object.

puts "this is a function"

File.puts "this is object.method"

Is this how everyone see it or do many people have different opinion on this
subject?

On 3/28/07, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 3:42 AM, SonOfLilit wrote:
>
> > Methods are associated with a receiver object.
> >
> > Functions are not.
> >
> > The only things you can call functions in Ruby are lambdas, blocks,
> > ... Even then it's not clear whether they are methods or functions.
> >
> > Everything else is methods.
>
> The above is all true, but we do sometimes refer to calling methods
> in a "function-style" in Ruby.  That's when you call a method without
> an explicit receiver.  For example:
>
>    puts "Hello world!"       # function-style
>    file.puts "Hello world!"  # normal method call
>
> Everything is still a method, this is just a name we use for the call
> style.
>
> I only bring it up because it is sometimes referred to in the
> documentation for things like private scope and module_function.
>
> James Edward Gray II
>
>
>

------=_Part_30126_1194282.1175085279578--